2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is what my news feed just sent me...

But now I think it's becoming a word used to label political opponents of the Democrats. If that's the case, I can live with it.

You mean like how the word fascist is used to describe Republican opponents?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is it becoming politically correct/acceptable to be labelled a "racist"?

If you ain't getting called one by a lot of sources, well, you're almost certainly doing something wrong.

edit: 'cause nothing is ever simple ... by "a lot of sources" I mean a by a number of particular ones, not in the "a whole bunch at once" sense.

[Solecismic]

Contest Results:

1. Quiksand (congrats)
2. NobodyHere
3. Me
4. Consensus (Trump 28, Kasich 17, Rubio 14, Bush 12, Cruz 11, Christie 11, Carson 3, Fiorina 2)

No one picked the order of finish correctly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is what my news feed just sent me...

A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary

Is it becoming politically correct/acceptable to be labelled a "racist"? Maybe I've had it all wrong. I thought being "racist" meant...well, you know...being "racist". But now I think it's becoming a word used to label political opponents of the Democrats. If that's the case, I can live with it.

Sad thing is that the word has lost its meaning to a lot of people. Used to be someone who discriminated against a race. Now it just means you didn't vote enough black people in at the Oscars or your video game has a white protagonist. When I hear someone called a racist I instinctively don't believe it because of these people.

Both sides utilize this crap but the Left's current strategy seems to be having a bunch of upper middle class white guys from the suburbs telling people that if they don't agree with their political views, they are a bigot.

[RainMaker]

I also think they miss the irony in calling him a mean spirited hate monger when that article is mean spirited hate monger. Horseshoe theory alive and well.

[larrymcg421]

Trump is racist = you hate everyone, because apparently Trump = everyone.

[Ben E Lou]

I reckon it's time for me to start reading up on how brokered conventions work. Trump ain't gonna get 50%, but his odds of getting a plurality seem to be increasing.

[JPhillips]

I would think having honest to God white power groups organizing for Trump would at least be something to consider, but what do I know.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would think having honest to God white power groups organizing for Trump would at least be something to consider, but what do I know.

Trump isn't going to lose his supporters just because some of his other supporters are unsavory types. At this point, it's time to acknowledge that JIMGA has had it dead right in this thread for a good while: the main path for Trump to lose significant supporters would be for him to back down on his stated positions on Muslims, immigration, building a wall, etc. Otherwise, it's going to be tough to erode his numbers. And the longer there's more than one "establishment" candidate in the race, the better he does.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I have to laugh at some of these other candidates outside of Trump who continue to believe that once the establishment candidates are whittled down, that all of those voters for those various candidates are suddenly all going to line up behind the guy that's left to battle Trump.

Much like the rest of this political race to this point, they continue to underestimate Trump and are going to pay dearly for it. He's a far better candidate than they give him credit for.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Trump isn't going to lose his supporters just because some of his other supporters are unsavory types. At this point, it's time to acknowledge that JIMGA has had it dead right in this thread for a good while: the main path for Trump to lose significant supporters would be for him to back down on his stated positions on Muslims, immigration, building a wall, etc. Otherwise, it's going to be tough to erode his numbers. And the longer there's more than one "establishment" candidate in the race, the better he does.

I don't disagree with any of this.

There's plenty of evidence that Trump is playing to white nationalism as his ticket to the nomination. His GOP is Le Pen's National Front. The frightening thing is how many supporters are thrilled to see the change.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I have to laugh at some of these other candidates outside of Trump who continue to believe that once the establishment candidates are whittled down, that all of those voters for those various candidates are suddenly all going to line up behind the guy that's left to battle Trump.

Much like the rest of this political race to this point, they continue to underestimate Trump and are going to pay dearly for it. He's a far better candidate than they give him credit for.

Actually, there's ample evidence that that is pretty much exactly what is going to happen. Trump is consistently polling as the top pick, but also as the most hated. Trump could pull some Cruz supporters if he exits, and Cruz could pull some Bush/Rubio/Kasich/Christie folks, but the huge majority of people lined up behind those four aren't going to consider Trump.

[larrymcg421]

Ron Paul bashes Cruz, feels the Bern...

"No libertarian": Ron Paul slams Ted Cruz, says Sanders is more pro-free market - Red Alert Politics

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't disagree with any of this.

There's plenty of evidence that Trump is playing to white nationalism as his ticket to the nomination. His GOP is Le Pen's National Front. The frightening thing is how many supporters are thrilled to see the change.

Totally disagree. He's anti-establishment and that's why he's so popular. Now that may play well in the white nationalism circles, but that's not his only target.

There's a reason some of the establishment candidates are so fearful of his candidacy. It threatens to rip the religion right out of the Republican Party. "Two Corinthians" aside, they'd be clueless not to realize that he's not in the slightest a religious man. There's tons of moderates like myself who want to hear more talk about repairing the economy from an atheist as opposed to hearing from an establishment candidate about why they believe in God so they're qualified to run our country. I could really give a sh#& about your religion. It doesn't belong in politics and it's been too engrained in the Republican Party for far too long.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Trump is labeled a 'religious racist' by the far right. And you know what? More people will vote for him if that happens. It certainly will not erode his numbers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Actually, there's ample evidence that that is pretty much exactly what is going to happen. Trump is consistently polling as the top pick, but also as the most hated. Trump could pull some Cruz supporters if he exits, and Cruz could pull some Bush/Rubio/Kasich/Christie folks, but the huge majority of people lined up behind those four aren't going to consider Trump.

Let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. I'm not sure that the others are smart enough to get the hell out of the way in time for the 'consolidated' candidate to win the nomination.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. I'm not sure that the others are smart enough to get the hell out of the way in time for the 'consolidated' candidate to win the nomination.

Well sure, but to be clear, this isn't something that I'll pulling out of thin air. Here's just one poll reflecting exactly what I'm talking about:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...onal_20416.pdf

Look at questions 13, 14, 17, and 18. In every "consolidated" scenario where he's present, Trump drops from #1. he doesn't even beat Cruz 1 on 1.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Totally disagree. He's anti-establishment and that's why he's so popular. Now that may play well in the white nationalism circles, but that's not his only target.

There's a reason some of the establishment candidates are so fearful of his candidacy. It threatens to rip the religion right out of the Republican Party. "Two Corinthians" aside, they'd be clueless not to realize that he's not in the slightest a religious man. There's tons of moderates like myself who want to hear more talk about repairing the economy from an atheist as opposed to hearing from an establishment candidate about why they believe in God so they're qualified to run our country. I could really give a sh#& about your religion. It doesn't belong in politics and it's been too engrained in the Republican Party for far too long.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Trump is labeled a 'religious racist' by the far right. And you know what? More people will vote for him if that happens. It certainly will not erode his numbers.

How does he express anti-establishment? Ban on Muslim immigration. Deport all the Mexican rapists and drug dealers. Blame crime on blacks. Mock Asians. Stop being politically correct and blame the right people for America's downfall.

Look at the issues that motivate Trump voters. They are generally very clear about what they like about Trump.

[JPhillips]

This is a little disconnected from the discussion, but I saw this from Josh Barro and it sums up the electorate well.

Most voters don't have opinions about policies. They have feelings about issues.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a little disconnected from the discussion, but I saw this from Josh Barro and it sums up the electorate well.

I think this hits the nail on the head regarding the electorate. In many regards, the collective electorate has ADD. We do not want to hear a policy wonk drone on about how he is going to fix XYZ. Give me the sound bite, and let me get on with my life.

Obama was the first to run a campaign this way. Look at his 2008 campaign, he was very light on substance, he was about bringing hope to America. Trump is running the same style campaign, but on the right side of the political spectrum.

As an aside, can we quit calling everyone that is calling for border security racist? Just because someone believes in enforcing our border and not letting illegals in, that does not automatically make them a racist.

[Kodos]

Does it make you a racist if you call them criminals and rapists and maybe some good people?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Obama was the first to run a campaign this way.

Campaigns have been run that way for a LONG time before 2008.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Does it make you a racist if you call them criminals and rapists and maybe some good people?

Those are two separate items. Painting with a broad brush vs wanting to secure the border. One is an item you can discuss and have different positions regarding. The other is stereotyping.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think this hits the nail on the head regarding the electorate. In many regards, the collective electorate has ADD. We do not want to hear a policy wonk drone on about how he is going to fix XYZ. Give me the sound bite, and let me get on with my life.

Obama was the first to run a campaign this way. Look at his 2008 campaign, he was very light on substance, he was about bringing hope to America. Trump is running the same style campaign, but on the right side of the political spectrum.

As an aside, can we quit calling everyone that is calling for border security racist? Just because someone believes in enforcing our border and not letting illegals in, that does not automatically make them a racist.

Any successful presidential campaign works this way. That's way debates about policy minutiae don't sway undecided voters. It's all about likability. Policy matters for the politically engaged, but those folks aren't persuadable.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Campaigns have been run that way for a LONG time before 2008.

People may have been light on the particulars before, but he focused on the sound bite. Also, I should have added successful.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

People may have been light on the particulars before, but he focused on the sound bite. Also, I should have added successful.

"Thousand Points of Light"
"Morning in America"
going WAY back: "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Trump is labeled a 'religious racist' by the far right. And you know what? More people will vote for him if that happens. It certainly will not erode his numbers.

More Republicans will vote for him? Or more Dems/Independents?

[stevew]

Christie out according to Reuters.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by stevew

Christie out according to Reuters.

You sure the source isn't the Cruz campaign?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You sure the source isn't the Cruz campaign?

[lungs]

I absolutely love watching Donald Trump speeches. It's like mixing professional wrestling with politics.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is what my news feed just sent me...

A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary

Is it becoming politically correct/acceptable to be labelled a "racist"? Maybe I've had it all wrong. I thought being "racist" meant...well, you know...being "racist". But now I think it's becoming a word used to label political opponents of the Democrats. If that's the case, I can live with it.

And that's how Republicans end up with the candidate they deserve.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

As an aside, can we quit calling everyone that is calling for border security racist? Just because someone believes in enforcing our border and not letting illegals in, that does not automatically make them a racist.

For the life of me I don't know why this isn't a drug argument. I would absolutely be for a border that shuts everything down in order to prevent drugs from coming in. However, it's still about people. People who are not really coming in a the rate the fear and biased perceptions proclaim:

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Really?

More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S. | Pew Research Center

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Also, is "not letting illegals in" the same as not letting people in illegally? Or are there illegal people in Mexico you don't want in?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

At this point, it's time to acknowledge that JIMGA has had it dead right in this thread for a good while: the main path for Trump to lose significant supporters would be for him to back down on his stated positions on Muslims, immigration, building a wall, etc.

{tips hat}

There IS however at least one other way for him to hurt himself: coming up with something new that leaves those intact but doesn't align well with them. Basically to find what I usually call a "third rail" and to jump up & down on it.

That's actually what I keep expecting to happen, it's the reason there isn't a Trump sign in my yard already.

With his strongest supporters (that I know) though, he's dodged the most obvious one rather easily. He's gotten a pass on the Confederate flag issue -- even from me -- on what largely seems to be the concept that "he's a Yankee, he just doesn't know any better". That, and the fact that he doesn't seem inclined to (pardon the expression) make a federal case out of it.

Just how easily he dodged that bullet has surprised me more than once. I'm talking about people who would join me for a future field trip to piss on Nikki Haley's hypothetical grave ... yet we're all giving Trump a pass on it. It's as though he's allowed to be wrong just so long as he isn't treacherous about it.

Now after everybody gets over any panty wadding that occurs because of my choice of third rail example, please try to look at the point I'm actually trying to make here.

Ask yourself this: how many people do you know that are more passionate about an issue than I am about that flag? But if I'm willing to let that slide as his one mistake thus far then how difficult must it be getting for him to find something that would turn supporters away? The odds of him finding that third rail actually seem to get slimmer with each passing day.

It seems to say a lot about the desperation that many voters feel about ever finding a candidate that even says the right things. My sense is that maybe only a little more than half his supporters actually trust him but feel like the odds of something good coming from his Presidency are certainly a helluva lot better than the odds with someone who doesn't even do that much.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

For many, the Pew Research numbers you cite don't matter at all. One person entering the US illegally is one too many. Even if they return to their point of origin the next day. Just as one robbery is one too many even if the robber returns the stolen goods, and one criminal trespassing is one too many even after the person leaves the premises. We shouldn't tolerate crime of any flavor (or eliminate laws we disagree with). Entering the US illegally is a crime and should be treated as such. As JimGa says, is a country that doesn't enforce its borders even a country?

But the world is interconnected. What cost are we willing to pay to get to zero undocumenteds? How much damage to our GDP? Our national reputation? Our abilities to form coalitions to fight terrorism? Etc.

Any time a single issue becomes the end all and be all, it usually is to our detriment.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

For many, the Pew Research numbers you cite don't matter at all. One person entering the US illegally is one too many. Even if they return to their point of origin the next day. Just as one robbery is one too many even if the robber returns the stolen goods, and one criminal trespassing is one too many even after the person leaves the premises. We shouldn't tolerate crime of any flavor (or eliminate laws we disagree with). Entering the US illegally is a crime and should be treated as such. As JimGa says, is a country that doesn't enforce its borders even a country?

Where I think it turns into feeling rather than opinion (great quote) is we (US) seem to be fine with benefits from these people. I would believe this not being racial or nationalist if you said, for example, "one restaurant or farmer is one too many."

[Solecismic]

Trump has some form of ADD, and it's exhausting trying to follow one of his speeches. I don't think he's racist at all, but he can't stay on topic long enough to explain anything. That's not exactly a positive for a president, so this is becoming frustrating. Especially as we've just lost the candidate (Christie) who should have cornered this support market.

While it's not exact, there were micro-races going on. Cruz defeated Huckabee, Santorum, Fiorina and Carson. Bush, Rubio and Kasich are after the same group. And Trump and Christie were in a similar battle.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Where I think it turns into feeling rather than opinion (great quote) is we (US) seem to be fine with benefits from these people. I would believe this not being racial or nationalist if you said, for example, "one restaurant or farmer is one too many."

Keep in mind there are other forces at play beyond our racism. There are some personality traits where people prefer order over chaos - that things run most effectively when everyone follows rules, and that rule breaking undermines this. That's why I included "or eliminate laws we disagree with". If we don't think this should be a rule, and everyone should be allowed to go anywhere, then change the rules. But this in-between situation creates the unease.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's as though he's allowed to be wrong just so long as he isn't treacherous about it.

Well, duh. As you probably know, I think you're on the wrong side of that issue, but that much seems obvious to me. I've seen enough of this world to know that the vast majority of Yankees just don't get it in flag discussions, so it would naturally follow that your side wouldn't hold them as accountable as you would someone born and raised in the South.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Trump has some form of ADD, and it's exhausting trying to follow one of his speeches. I don't think he's racist at all, but he can't stay on topic long enough to explain anything. That's not exactly a positive for a president, so this is becoming frustrating.

I tend so suspect that he's crazy like a fox. It's what he does. Let's not forget the amazing "until we can figure out what the hell is going on" timeframe for his ban on Muslims. That wasn't off the cuff, it was a written statement. It may not be a positive for a president, but it's working pretty well for him as a candidate.

[JPhillips]

Retweeting things from the @whitegenocide account certainly seems racially motivated.

I'll grant that he may not personally be racist, but he's certainly willing to court their votes by appealing to racist sensibilities.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What cost are we willing to pay to get to zero undocumenteds?

For me? ANY price.

I'm on the farther end of that I suspect, the mileage would very likely vary (amongst my hypothetically kindred spirits I mean).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Well, duh. As you probably know, I think you're on the wrong side of that issue, but that much seems obvious to me. I've seen enough of this world to know that the vast majority of Yankees just don't get it in flag discussions, so it would naturally follow that your side wouldn't hold them as accountable as you would someone born and raised in the South.

Actually, I've been quite surprised about it. It's not what I'd call a particularly forgiving crowd, on that subject nor many others.

We don't expect him to get it, that's virtually a given ... but I don't know that I've ever seen it so readily forgiven. I definitely don't see the average person getting anywhere near this much slack on the subject, I've seen that borne out repeatedly over the years.

I really believe it speaks to the sheer sense of desperation for a candidate as much as anything.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

For me? ANY price.

I'm on the farther end of that I suspect, the mileage would very likely vary (amongst my hypothetically kindred spirits I mean).

Out of interest, does ANY price include restrictions/removals of your own personal freedoms and rights?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Out of interest, does ANY price include restrictions/removals of your own personal freedoms and rights?

Not speaking for Jon specifically, but I can guarantee you that many would say "absolutely!" A significant number of people (heck, maybe the majority) in America are just fine with things like random searches, license checks, surveillance, etc., because "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then there's nothing to worry about."

[AlexB]

I'm interested because there seems to be a huge anti-police sentiment, and the only way that full national security could be achieved is with increased police involvement as a part of the solution.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Out of interest, does ANY price include restrictions/removals of your own personal freedoms and rights?

Ben covered most of it for me well enough I think. We can find specific points that could be hypothetically unacceptable (probably pretty easily in fact) but in many (if not most or even all) of those cases an argument can also be made that those steps aren't necessary to accomplish the goal.

And, though I'd hope this is obvious I won't take it for granted, I'll go ahead and stipulate that I don't believe literally zero illegal entry is achievable. There's always a way for someone to slip through any net, the goal is to be as close to it as possible. That's where swift & sure enforcement of penalties after illegal entry comes into play, to deal with those who do slip through.

[Solecismic]

A large part of why the US was able to sustain 3-4% economic growth before Obama was immigration.

I think what Trump is trying to say is that we can have all the benefits of immigration, but we need to keep the criminals out. Can that be said without sounding racist? I don't know.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I'm interested because there seems to be a huge anti-police sentiment, and the only way that full national security could be achieved is with increased police involvement as a part of the solution.

Those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem.

I have zero, hell less than zero, qualms about making the penalties for aiding & abetting be at least equally stiff as the ones for illegal entry.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

aiding & abetting

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Not speaking for Jon specifically, but I can guarantee you that many would say "absolutely!" A significant number of people (heck, maybe the majority) in America are just fine with things like random searches, license checks, surveillance, etc., because "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then there's nothing to worry about."

I'd argue that a lot of people are fine with the concepts until it happens to them. At that point, it's a tyrannical government.